NOTE: The information presented here is based on research, community discussions, and conversations with lawyers. It does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know has legal issues like the kind discussed here, please seek the expertise of a qualified attorney.
This is the first of a series on immigration reform and its effects on the LGBTQ community.

Shirley Tan came here in 1986 as a tourist. Then, she overstayed her visa, supposedly after meeting her female partner Jay Mercado who was, like her, originally from the Phillipines. Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented. They have been domestic partners for a while, according to a People article, and even wed in 2004. Tan gave birth to their twin sons who are both citizens. In 1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister. In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it. Finally, this year, on January 28, ICE agents showed up at the couple’s Pacifica California home and arrested her. Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010 and a private bill on her behalf has been issued in Congress.

Immigration Equality and other supporters of Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) have made Shirley Tan and her family members the poster children for a piece of legislation that, they claim, would guarantee that binational couples like the Tan-Mercados are able to stay together. Why is this important? Under existing law, in many circumstances, heterosexual married citizens or permanent residents are able to sponsor their partners for immigration.

The average person on the street assumes that immigration through marriage is a “Ta-da!” solution. Your partner/best friend’s visa expired and she might have to return to her country when she’d rather stay here? Ta-da! A quick visit to the County marriage office and all your problems are solved. UAFA proffers to many the same quick-fix method by simply inserting the words “permanent partners” wherever the word “spouse” is mentioned. In reality, immigration through marriage doesn’t work so easily.

I’m against UAFA for a number of reasons, not the least of which is this: even if immigration through marriage/permanent partnership is a solution, who says it’s the ideal solution anyway? And why push for a law that guarantees rights to a privileged few while leaving the plight of others unquestioned?

As an immigration rights activist, my concern is with comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The current immigration crisis has come about because the United States feeds on cheap labor and the exploitation of millions, the very people it chooses to dispose of quickly and crudely via the mechanisms of raids and deportations. It does this because it knows that there is more cheap labor to be had because of the conditions of “free trade” it has created, conditions that guarantee a breakdown in the economies of countries like Mexico. These conditions, in turn, guarantee the flow of people desperate to find a living here.

But, ah, you might say, but Shirley Tan isn’t one of them. Tan and Mercado, as the People article makes clear, are upstanding suburbanites. Why, she’s even a stay-at-home soccer mom! Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality drives the nail home in a quote: “They are exactly the kind of people you want living in this country.” Right. The others can just rot in hell. You know the ones we mean – the day laborers who move from job to job, underpaid and overexploited; the low-paid workers who build suburban houses for us on the cheap as opposed to living in them, and so on.

This is only my first problem with UAFA – it doesn’t really change the paradigms of immigration. It fixates on an emotional and affective problem, posited as a problem of true love – what’s truer than decades of living together and children? It’s a quick-fix solution for a privileged few and does nothing to address the larger economic crisis that is immigration in the United States. Proponents of UAFA have made it clear that they will fight for it to be a stand-alone bill if it doesn’t become part of CIR. You might argue that gays and lesbians deserve to have a bill that just speaks to their own interests, damn it. After all, haven’t we endured enough discrimination in a country that doesn’t even recognize our marriages?

Well, not really. Just like gay marriage was thrust down “our” collective throat as “the gay rights cause” (excuse me, when did we vote on that and who made these gay marriage proponents our leaders anyway?), UAFA is now being presented as THE immigration cause for LGBT people. If we as a gay and lesbian community are to speak about immigration in any form, we need to understand the larger context in which such bills operate. The UAFA will not benefit every gay and lesbian couple, and it’s going to be a distraction from CIR. It makes a grand symbolic gesture, but it’s also most likely an exercise in futility that will not, in fact, even benefit many binational couples.

For instance, if you or your partner entered the country illegally and without inspection, chances are that spousal sponsorship won’t help anyway. But, and here’s a huge complication that can enter even for straight couples: under certain circumstances – even a spouse can be subject to a 10-year ban, which means that she/he will have to return to the country of origin and not return for a decade.

Is your head spinning yet?

What it comes down to is this: Under very narrow circumstances, Shirley Tan’s case could be replicated in a straight binational marriage, but each case is unique and not all straight marriages are automatic routes to citizenship. Tan’s case is somewhat complicated because she also sought to gain asylum, a petition that was denied (I’ll write more about asylum in an upcoming column). But even if all things were equal, there’s the issue of economics. UAFA deems it necessary that the sponsoring partner show proof of ample resources, which leaves poorer people out of the picture. In fact, IE and HRC (another organization that’s keenly behind this bill) representatives at a recent immigration conference I attended spoke about the need to show the economic costs if binational couples decided to leave the United States for a country like Canada that recognizes their relationships – they might just up and leave! This is the supposed trump card – if gay and lesbian couples aren’t allowed to be together, several of them with lucrative businesses will just take them to countries like Canada. So there.

Of course, if you don’t have the resources, tough luck. And good lawyers who won’t just take your money and run can be hard to find. In addition, the speed with which your immigration application goes through the system depends a lot on your country of origin. What most people don’t know is that immigration law is an arcane and shape-shifting monster that’s subject to the whims of issues as fickle as shifting relations between United States and relevant countries. So, if your partner is from a country like, say the Netherlands or France, the chances are that your passage will be easier. If you’re from Iran or Pakistan –well, how easy do think your application will be? And then there’s the fact that green card marriages are subject to incredibly close and personal questioning by immigration officials, including details about your sex life.

What’s also left out of the whole spouse/permanent partnership issue is the fact that such relationships are also likely to be rife with abuse. UAFA specifically requires that partners demonstrate financial interdependency. Partnerships, like straight marriages, will be subject to a two-year period during which much of the power rests with the sponsoring partner. If you’re on your spouse’s H1-B, you can’t get a social security number and you can’t apply for jobs. The Hindu, an Indian newspaper, has written about the abuse of women on their husbands’ H-4 visas. Is this the kind of situation we feminist queers fought for? Do we seriously believe that the pure love between gays and lesbian couples makes it impossible for such abuse to occur?

Did you really think your love would be enough?

So where does this leave Shirley Tan and others like her? It absolutely makes sense that we agitate on their behalf. If there’s a petition to sign, sign it. If there’s a march in your town, go ahead and march. At the very least, the law needs to change so that it’s more flexible and grants people like Tan the leeway to be in the country they now call home. But, at the same time, ask yourself, as either a queer or a straight citizen, about those millions of undocumented who don’t have the resources to leave. Consider those millions of undocumented who might be in binational relationships but are not considered idea families/relationships because they lack the money and respectability that the law demands.

What do we, whether straight or gay, really know about the larger picture of immigration reform? Why, in these undoubtedly sad cases of binational cases, are we willing to only act on our emotions but not consider asking: what happens to the larger issue of CIR?

The fact is that UAFA doesn’t really stand much of a chance in large part because Republicans and Democrats alike worry that it’s a way of writing gay marriage into federal law. And, let’s be blunt about it: it is, even if UAFA supporters insist to the contrary. This is marriage by another name. I happen to be against gay marriage for reasons that have to do with my position on the left, but there are plenty of people on the right who don’t want it for different reasons. If UAFA is forced into CIR, there’s a chance that CIR itself will suffer because UAFA might well become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. Gays and lesbians in binational couples and their supporters will be able to make an emotional and symbolic point about the discrimination they suffer, but the costs to CIR may be irreparable. So, go ahead and protest for Shirley Tan and others like her. But if you can’t or won’t protest on behalf of the millions of others who don’t fit the cozy and unrealistic idea of “family” as well, don’t protest at all.

I think you make several important points. First of all, when did marriage become the gay rights issue du jure?

Secondly, immigration is a tough topic. And I think you provide good examples as to why UAFA is not a cure all. Everything is mitigated by class and country of origin.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if lesbians started marrying gay men, and visa versa, so that they can get immigration status? And how would someone’s petition for asylum be handled if they were making their application on the grounds that homosexuality is persecuted in their home country?

So because this only impact some people, who you deem already privileged enough, then you don’t want it to happen? What about the people it would help? Should they not be helped? In your opinion is it only if poor people are the beneficiaries of government assistance that the government should offer them assistance? If people with any degree of material wealth would benefit then by all means stand up and argue against such unfairness. After all, capitalism is bad and anyone who benefits from it must also be bad. That’s typical old-guard leftist exaggeration and nonsense, and I don’t buy a word of your argument.

As for lesbians marrying gay men and vice versa, there have been instances of such cases. UAFA is supposed to be designed, with provisions, to prevent such cases of what would be considered fraud, since lawmakers have expressed concern about that. Of course, they conveniently forget that such marriages of convenience have been happening among straight people for a long time!

The vetting process for straight couples has been quite complex, from what I gather, and authorities do not hesitate to ask the most intimate questions; couples are also required to provide copious amounts of proof, down to honeymoon pictures and bank accounts. As I see it, this doesn’t in any way prove that marriage/permanent partnership is a desirable immigration strategy. In fact, it proves the opposite and that we should be thinking of more humane and just ways for people to enter the country without them having to be married/or in relationships that are then scrutinised by the state to make sure they pass its tests. My problem with UAFA is that it simply replicates the same problematics of straight immigration via marriage instead of at least gesturing towards alternatives.

The issue of asylum on the grounds of sexual orientation is similarly complex, and what makes it especially so is that applicants, at this time, have only a year from the date of arrival to petition for the same. I’ll be discussing the issue in more detail in an upcoming post, but suffice it to say that proving one’s sexuality according to a US-based model of “out and proud,” let alone proving that one has been persecuted on account of it, can be a humiliating and wearying task!

Jim,
I don’t really know where you’re coming from or going in your comment. As I explained in my post, I stand for comprehensive immigration reform that gets to the larger contexts and root of the problem, not piecemeal solutions designed for a few that might even detract from the larger legislation. But to be clear: I don’t believe in legislation that only benefits a privileged few when it stands to contradict the needs of the larger group and the issue.

As for the statements that that you make on my behalf: “If people with any degree of material wealth would benefit then by all means stand up and argue against such unfairness. After all, capitalism is bad and anyone who benefits from it must also be bad.” That may be “old-guard leftist exaggeration and nonsense” or not, but they’re certainly not my thoughts.

I can’t help but notice that you make no comments whatsoever on my points about, for instance, binational couples who don’t stand to benefit when both partners are undocumented. Or about the larger issue of labour and the economy needing to play a dominant role in reform. I’m simply saying that we can and must forge a solution that is more practical and humane than simply assuming that a) a solution like UAFA is easy, when it’s not
b) that UAFA is somehow an issue for immigration rights activists when in fact most gays and lesbians don’t care about CIR in the first place.

For the record, I don’t hold it against people if they should want to benefit from UAFA, should it pass, or if they feel compelled to use their partnerships/marriages to prove their worth to immigration authorities (or anything else, like their superior computing skills, for instance). People (including several friends of mine) must do what they can in these situations to stay in the only home they’ve known for years. But that’s on a personal level. On a political level, I think we owe it to ourselves to push for more long-term and just reform.

“I’m against UAFA for a number of reasons, not the least of which is this: even if immigration through marriage/permanent partnership is a solution, who says it’s the ideal solution anyway?”

Who do you think should say? Should someone other than myself and my partner determine what the ideal solution is for us and our lives and our pursuit of happiness? Shouldn’t we be the ones to say?

“Did you really think your love would be enough?”

So you are saying it is not enough? It is not enough to love my partner from Berlin Germany and want to spend my life with her? I need something else? We both work hard for a living, lady. We’re not rich people looking for handouts (bailouts). We just want to be together finally after 2 and half years. I have to carry the weight of all of the problems with the immigration system that I did not create in order for it to be more noble to want to be with her?

I can consider the millions of undocumented people in this country. We don’t want to be undocumented any more than they do.

Just because you don’t like the idea of including UAFA within the CRI doesn’t mean that it’s a stupid bill that won’t really matter to anybody unless you have boatloads of money. Don’t trivialize what I have gone through the past two years or how devastating all of this must be to the two women in your story. Because doing that is as unfair to us as you claim our bill is to your cause.

I don’t care what you think about gay marriage or binational families relying solely on their “stupid” love to get a piece of the American Dream. It happens to mean a lot to a lot of people. A lot of American people that make shit money in poor working conditions too where love is all they got.

I’m sympathetic to your situation, but I think you’re responding to different post than the one I wrote. Which is to say: you’re putting words in my mouth. You’re the one who used the infantile word “stupid,” and I’ll thank you not to imply that I’d discussed this issue in such language. Let’s at least not resort to childish retorts.

My question “Did you really think your love would be enough?” was intended to make people who’ve been given hope by UAFA realise that it probably won’t solve their problems. I think you know perfectly well that it is by no means a question posed to question the worth of your love. I think IE and others are using the simplest and least complicated cases of spousal sponsorship to imply that UAFA is a ta-da solution, when it’s clearly not applicable to many people in binational relationships. And no, I actually don’t even think that straight spousal sponsorships are necessarily a good way to go – given how the law is currently constructed so that it places the sponsored person at a disadvantage.

As for your rather dramatic statement at the end – well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? We’ve been led to assume that our love alone can be the solution to all our problems while, in the meantime, our economic lives are being ripped apart. I once had someone with a disabled foreign partner and no insurance scream, in a comment, that their being together would solve all his problems. To which I responded: and you’ll get your partner here, and then what? Two people without health insurance, in a state that will monitor your relationship and not give a damn about the myriad issues that face people in your situation?

And, as with Jim’s comment, I can’t help notice that you only focus on the personal and the individual without considering the larger context. Given your clearly painful situation, you’re not to be blamed for that. But this is a blog post that’s trying to ask general questions about an issue that very few people have thought to interrogate – even though it concerns a significant change in the law.

as someone in a binational relationship, I have a personal interest in UAFA, or any other similar law that would let me sponsor my partner here. It has the same requirements as a straight couple, as well as the same punishments. Its actually just adding gay couples into the definitions of the current law. I know its not an automatic green card, it requires me to agree to support him for up to 10 years. I also have a career where I can afford to support him, another major requirement of the law.

I do home that CIR is passed, but I do hope gay and lesbian couples are included. There are some bills that have been introduced that have some broader CIR goals that do include gays and lesbians, so I am hoping that something does get through.

As far as your belief that some think this will be a backdoor to gay marriage, I don’t know if that’s the case. Most people who are against it are usually against it from the fraud angle. It has the same tests/punishments as straight couples, so I don’t see how fraud would be any higher. There is a DOMA challenge working its way through the courts. That has more of a chance of changing the marriage definitions than this does.

Thanks for this post. You laid out a map to help me better understand what is going on.

One thing I always worry about with single-issue agitation like this is whether this funding is actually taking away support/attention/funding from a more comprehensive solution that would impact more people, and would benefit the people who are most marginalized by the current system. For example, as marriage rose as “the issue,” organizations working with LGBT youth and LGBT homeless youth reported finding that a number of their donors stopped donating or switched their donations to a marriage-focused organization. Do you know anything you could share about the relationship between the organizations and individuals supporting these two strategies?

I totally agree with Jim. Just because the bill helps a small number of people, it doesn’t make it bad.

Yasmin is absolutely right that millions of poorly paid foreigners are struggling in America and that comprehensive reform is needed but Rome wasn’t built in a day. Immigration law is hundreds of years old – for example the treaty between the US and the UK that allows investors to acquire visas was written in 1812.

First, thank you all for your thoughtful responses. Nina and Serena, I can’t say enough about how thrilled I am to be on a blog that actually discusses economics and finances in a queer context, given how often that intersection is rarely discussed in the queer blogosphere. Thanks so much for your welcoming words.

Mark,
I actually want a tangible solution for people in binational relationships. I think we’re on the same page in terms of understanding what the issues are for people in these cases. I don’t want to presume to speak for you, or to misinterpret what you wrote, but I understand from your detailing of the actual process that you’re aware of the limitations UAFA might place on less privileged people. I genuinely feel that people in your situation (and, I’ll be the first to acknowledge, it’s a situation that could well be mine one day, who knows?) deserve to have a solution sooner rather than later.

My issues with UAFA are from the standpoint of someone who’s concerned about CIR and would like to ensure that we forge a reasonable set of solutions for everyone. That said, I’m also realistic. Having seen this battle ebb and flow over the last decade, I’m only too aware that there will never be a perfect CIR. But my concern about UAFA is that a) it will distract from CIR
b) that it replicates horrible paradigms (financial dependency, for one) that we queers, of all people, should be wary of and
c) it promises to be the cure-all when in fact many people in binational relationships will not benefit from it.

As for whether or not it’s a back door to gay marriage, you’re absolutely right about the fraud protections. The problem is that asking for gay couples to be given specific rights as couples puts this legislation squarely in the realm of gay marriage for legislators more concerned about appearance than reality.

Ironically, there are binational couples who would like UAFA and who are not necessarily pro gay marriage. However, if you look at the rationale emerging from the groups agitating for this, one rationale emerges from this over and over again: Our relationships are not recognised by the state, unlike those of heterosexuals, so we need this in order to be equal to heterosexuals.

And this is where IE et al’s “this is not gay marriage” logic breaks down completely. Because: heterosexuals in domestic partnerships with foreign citizens or who would like their friends, lovers etc to be able to migrate to the U.S to join them are not allowed to sponsor them. So, in effect, what UAFA supporters are saying is this: We want the same rights as *married* couples, not single and attached couples who have lovers and friends they’d like to bring over. In other words, in all this rhetoric about equality, we’re conveniently forgetting that the only heterosexuals with whom we’d like parity are… married couples, not just couples. So, in that sense, while the term “gay marriage” may be assiduously avoided, it does in fact completely circumscribe the UAFA legislation.

I agree with you on DOMA as a better way to get rid of marriage discrimination. At the same time, of course, I’m also against marriage, gay or straight, but that’s another post entirely!

wtto,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about funding resources being diverted from other LGBT resources. I’ve heard from an immigration attorney who works on international gay issues that gay organizations have specifically refused to support any solidarity-building efforts unless there’s a commitment to marriage. I also know from people in Chicago working on LGBT street youth that they’ve seen a drastic reduction in resources. I’m glad you raised this question because it makes me realise that we need to document this trend in queer funding. These people spoke off the record or in contexts where there was some understanding that their thoughts wouldn’t be broadcast publicly, but I can definitely return and see if they or others will speak on the record.

Terry,
Yes, I see your point about small steps. The problem is that some small steps lead to large consequences that can be hard to reverse. If UAFA does pass, it will have the effect of cementing a particular way in which the state controls, once again, our lives and our relationships. Immigration law is old, yes, but that doesn’t mean it has been getting better.

For instance, “family reunification” has always been the bedrock of U.S. immigration law but it has, over the years, always been intensely racialised in terms of what families it supports. In the 19th century, Asian women were strictly scrutinised to make sure they were not going to be prostitutes. Today, single (and even married) Mexican women are scrutinised and demonised as women who supposedly use babies to plant themselves on U.S soil.

Age does not always signify change for the better.

Thanks again to everyone for your thoughtful responses. My responses tend to be lengthy, but I’m genuinely interested in exploring the ins and outs of this issue in a public forum. Please keep the questions and comments coming.

I’m glad you raised that critical issue. That’s definitely one of the big reasons for dissent, and many people will insist that they don’t want to be associated with “illegals” (a term that comes up distressingly often in the conversations around UAFA). What’s ironic, of course, is that they’re fine if those “illegals” are their own partners.

One of the most problematic issues around UAFA is the way it allows for a deeply conservative vision of nationhood and belonging. And a number of UAFA supporters (not all, as is evident from the comments above) don’t have much to say about discrimination against the very “illegals” who make our lives easier with their cheap labour.

Yasmin,
As an immigration rights activist, you advocate for some kind of comprehensive immigration reform. But you don’t explain how you would like it to look.
You are against inclusion of the UAFA in CIR, but you seem to be against the UAFA as a stand-alone bill.
I would like to know what you propose we do.
Are you aware that the foreign partner in a same-sex couple can be denied entry(as well as any type of visa) at the border simply because of the relationship? It happens.
So we should just accept this?

This is the first in a series about immigration, and a later post will propose alternatives. So far, no one has really interrogated UAFA and this initial post is meant to get readers to at least look more closely at the bill and its promises.

As far as the situation of a foreign partner in a same-sex couple being denied entry “simply because of the relationship,” – you don’t provide any details, so it’s hard to tell what the circumstances were/are or even under what law this could happen. You can’t be denied entry because of your sexuality, but there are circumstances under which you can be denied entry if the authorities think your intent is to migrate. For instance, if you enter on a tourist visa and they find evidence that you plan to set up a business here.

Without knowing more specifics, which you don’t provide, I can’t say any more. I do know that you can be denied entry if they decide that you’re entering fraudulently. Historically, single people, especially women, who’ve entered the country as tourists and been “discovered” to have pre-existing romantic relationships have been denied entry/or interrogated. A lot of this had/has to do race and gender, of course.

I think it’s problematic to assume that sexual orientation in immigration operates in exclusion to all other categories. If you would, please provide more details of the case or the exact law in question, and I’ll look into it.

There is plenty of information/ stories out there about cases in which someone lost his/her visa, did not even get one or was denied entry to the US simply because they were in a same-sex relationship with an American citizen.

As you might know, in order to get a visa the applicant must prove strong enough ties to his/ her home country. Being in a permanent relationship with a US-citizen makes this kind of difficult and is seen as an intent to stay in the US.
We also know of cases in which the foreign partner was sent back for making use of the tourist visa option too often.

So in fact, they have to ( and they try to) hide their relationship. And this is discriminatory.

You can check the different sites for stories:
( immigrationequality.org, out4immigration.org, imeq.us).

You wrote in a reply to Jim:

‘I can’t help but notice that you make no comments whatsoever on my points about, for instance, binational couples who don’t stand to benefit when both partners are undocumented.’

In connection with the UAFA ‘binational’ refers to couples in which one person is American.
Actually, foreign binational couples- if legal- can sponsor their foreign partner.
This is a case in which non-Americans have more rights.

You also wrote that poorer binational couples will be ‘left out’. The requirements for sponsoring someone through marriage ( same would apply to permanent partners) is 125% over the poverty line. If someone is not able to fulfill this requirement, the possibility of ( unlimited) joint sponsors exists.

Then you wrote:

‘If you’re on your spouse’s H1-B, you can’t get a social security number and you can’t apply for jobs. The Hindu, an Indian newspaper, has written about the abuse of women on their husbands’ H-4 visas. Is this the kind of situation we feminist queers fought for? Do we seriously believe that the pure love between gays and lesbian couples makes it impossible for such abuse to occur?’

What does it have to do with the UAFA?
If the UAFA passes, permanent partners of American citizens would be able to obtain permanent residency ( including work permit). I don’t see the connection with H1-B visas.

As I wrote before, the UAFA and the CIR are applied to very different groups of people.
I’m not passing judgement, merely pointing this out.
In fact, I respect the work you are doing on behalf of ‘undocumented’ people, but you won’t get much sympathy by criticizing us when we only demand our basic human rights.

Why are you making us out to be crybabies? You are suggesting that our problem is not worth standing up for. You are placing your cause over ours saying we would be privileged when in fact we would only have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Why are you trying to decide what is good for us?

Can you explain why you place the rights of non-Americans over those of Americans? I know you are going to attack me for this question but please tell me which country would do this.

with regard to the issue of people being denied entry because they’re in a relationship – that applies to opposite-sex couples as well, does it not? So does the issue of using the tourist visa too often. So – that’s not discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, but the law being used exactly the same way it would be used on straight couples.

That goes back to an earlier point I made, which is that the UAFA wants parity between same-sex couples and *married* straight couples, not couples per se. Which is why the claim that this has nothing to do with gay marriage becomes a bit wobbly.

I raised the issue of H1-B and H-4 visas because the UAFA is NOT restricted to citizens; it’s clearly intended for permanent residents as well. This from IE: “The Uniting American Families Act (“UAFA” and formerly known as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act or “PPIA”) is a bill that if passed, would provide a mechanism under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to allow U.S. citizens (USCs) and *legal permanent residents* (LPRs) in binational same-sex relationships to sponsor their foreign born partner for immigration benefits to the U.S.” (emphasis mine)

It’s important to remember that not every citizen is someone who was born in this country – many permanent residents are tracked into citizenship. So, in that sense, there’s a link right there between CIR and UAFA. If the U.S.-based partner is still working on citizenship papers, he/she will have to use a different visa to sponsor the partner. That’s how it works for straight people.

As for the crybabies bit: look, if you’re going to engage, engage, but not with these childish maneuvers. Don’t imply that I implied or stated something without evidence of the same. And let’s stop making this a personal issue. I’ve made it amply clear that my sympathies are with the people in these situations; it’s the law that I find fault with.

Frankly, given that you don’t even know that the law is supposed to benefit LPRs as well as citizens compels me to say: get your facts straight, stop putting words or sentiments in my mouth, and then we’ll talk.

oh dear
why are you fighting this? It surely is a step in the right direction.
I now live in the UK with my partner and she’s a born and bred US citizen who has to leave her country of origin – she is in exile – this isn’t a matter of immigration rights but civil rights for a citizen of the USA

she left her home, family, 17 year career because her country believes she shouldn’t be able to live with the partner of her choosing in her mother country

I’m sympathetic to your situation, but “exile” is the wrong term. Let’s not forget that “exile” is what happens to people who are expelled for harsh political reasons and is not a term to be used loosely.

Okay, people, from here on – if you have a personal situation, feel free to share it. But I can’t and won’t be responding to your individual stories (unless it connects to some kind of a political point). The point I’ve made is simple: people in these situations deserve sympathy, but this critique is not about individual cases, it’s about asking us to take a closer look at the law and understand that it is a)ineffective for many people b) unsatisfactory as law because of its excessive privileging of some people over others.

Please remember that for every case of a binational couple kept apart, there are probably ten who are kept apart for reasons other than their relationships. And fifteen cases of people, in families or not, torn away because they don’t fit the retrograde requirements of this law.

Hmmmm… having read over my last response to Anonymous, I feel I should amend it slightly. Let me be clear: As sympathetic as I am to people’s individual cases, I don’t think this should be the venue to start listing them and I don’t want to give the impression that I’m inviting people to share their stories here. Immigration Equality has a blog specifically set up for that, so you might want to consider sharing your story there.

My blog post was specifically written to provide a much-needed critical look at this legislation. On occasion, as with Mark’s comment above, it becomes necessary to write about the situation in order to make a point. But if you don’t have a point other than the fact that your relationship has or is causing you distress, it might be best to rethink simply posting the story here.

As is the wont on blogs, my words here will doubtless be misconstrued, and I’ll be demonised as an uncaring pig. Be that as it may: I’m simply pointing out that this particular blog post was designed to initiate a discussion of the issues, not in order for people to post their stories – no matter how poignant — and run.

UAFA is not the problem here. Current immigration law is based on family reunification. CIR WILL include family reunification, and hopefully expand the narrow definition of family as immediate family… that is, spouses and children under 16. But right now, that is the legal definition of family in immigration law for ALL families, not just same-sex couples.

Therefore, if you want to change this particular aspect, you should join forces with immigration advocates who would like to abolish the nuclear family as the definition of “family.” I have yet to meet one, so if you do, please let me know. I would love to talk to them. (there has been interest in expanding it, but not eliminating it)

One of the things that turned me off about UAFA is that the broader LGBT community began using the immigration/UAFA talking point as an argument for marriage while doing nothing to enhance the passage of the bill. THAT to me was the problem. Using the suffering of a segment of the community to push an agenda that will not help that segment (marriage is a state-by-state strategy, and federal issues like immigration will be dealt with later).

Also, you sorely contradict yourself when you argue the financial implications of NOT having UAFA as being elitist. And that is exactly true. People with means can get around not having relationship recognition. I’ve seen anything from moving abroad to opening a company in the U.S. for this purpose. But once I received an e-mail from a couple where one was a waiter and the other a bus-boy. Their only hope would have been UAFA. Therefore, the bill would help those in need NOW and who can’t afford expensive lawyers or have the skills to seek employment or move abroad. And you are right when you say that it won’t help ALL LGBT people, but no bill helps ALL in one community.

You and I have privately gone at this in the past, and my position remains that UAFA is a piece of the puzzle, and not the whole solution. Just like the DREAM act will not “fix” immigration law, nor will it help all immigrant students. I would like to see you take an approach similar to the one you took about UAFA with, say AgJOBS or the DREAM Act. On their own, none of these bills do #@$%#%^&^ for CIR, but together they do, and UAFA is part of that.

And yes, I agree with the fact that some of the spin is less than ideal. As I said, in my personal case I saw immigration being used too much as a means to push marriage, while doing little for the passage of the bill itself. THAT’s what the problem… talking the talk, and not walking the walk. The intelligent debate here would be around that “strategy” rather than the bill proper.

Quite honestly, at times your posts on matters of this nature sound too academic and quite distanced from reality. It’s awesome that you advocate for an utopia where all people have all the rights based on birth alone. I too want to see that. But until we get there, we have to work with what we have in order to pave our way there. It’s not an either/or, rather a both/and.

My last comment is around the good immigrant v. bad immigrant argument. This is a trait that’s used even by the immigrant rights movement… “hard working people.” They also present a “wholesome” image of what an immigrant family looks like, which by the way is a nuclear heterosexual family. When are you going to write about this? When are you going to question the heteronormative family model within the immigrant community? I would love to see your commentary about how the immigrant rights community sides itself with the oppressor in order to push forward their agenda. Yes, the LGBT community does that too, and all oppressed communities do it. They figure out how they are the most alike with the oppressor and present that image. Yet you seem to only latch onto that perspective when it comes to the LGBT community and no one else. I would be very interested in reading similar commentary of yours about other communities.

You write: “with regard to the issue of people being denied entry because they’re in a relationship – that applies to opposite-sex couples as well, does it not? So does the issue of using the tourist visa too often. So – that’s not discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, but the law being used exactly the same way it would be used on straight couples.”

No, the discrimination comes in the fact that straight couples have the option to get married and stop using a tourist visa. None of us in binational relationships have that option, so we are stuck with the tourist visa as the only option to see each other.

“Okay, people, from here on – if you have a personal situation, feel free to share it. But I can’t and won’t be responding to your individual stories (unless it connects to some kind of a political point).”

Guess what? This is personal, for many many people. I’m being forced to leave the country so I can live with my partner, who can’t get a visa. So are hundreds, thousands of others. And you’re right, by criticizing this legislation that has the potential to correct an injustice that deeply affects our daily lives, you come across as insensitive. Worse, you neglect to recognize that couples who are poor, and/or where one person is from a non-European country are being disproportionately hurt by the current situation– someone from Iran doesn’t have the option to bring his partner home like someone from Canada or the Netherlands does, and it requires even more money and resources for a couple to jointly immigrate to a third country like Canada than it would for an American living and working here to sponsor her partner if it were possible.

Good luck on comprehensive immigration reform– we need it. But please consider expending your efforts supporting true dialog between the many disparate groups affected by injustice in our current system, rather than dismissing the very real and harmful discrimination that we do face as gay binational couples.

Yasmin, When did CIF become a queer issue?
Your post is a bunch of convoluted ideas.
You missed the mark and the point.
UAFA is a civil rights issue not a immigration issue.
If a straight man can sponsor his bride for a Green Card then I as a Gay man should be able to sponsor my Husband for a Green card. Under the UAFA we would be held to the same standards as straight couples. Fraud and all, and yes I agree it isn’t a TA-DA moment. But it’s better than what we have now.
The UAFA has been introduced twice before and each time it died in committee. Because it deals to two unpopular issues Gay Rights and Immigration.
If you are truly a immigration activist you realize how hard it is to obtain a work visa or green card. Unless you’re a professional US Immigration doesn’t want you. My Husband is here on a student visa, he doesn’t have the capacity to obtain a professional degree and hold down a job in that discipline, although he tries. What it will eventually come down to is either the UAFA passes or some other miracle happens or we leave and go back to his country of origin.
You talk about the poor underpaid workers, well lets say Mexicans for example, who are mostly Catholic, conservation, uneducated and would in a heart beat if given the chance, would vote against Gay Rights. So I repeat when did CIF become a Queer Issue? What percentage of these poor underpaid workers are queer?
Yes I know there needs to be Immigration reform, but we need to take care of our own first.

There are so many contradictory streams here.
It appears that you have the same issue with the gay marriage movement appropriating immigration. I’m glad you raised that. But a lot of this seems to be an attempt to resolve contradictory threads and in the process, you’ve decided to lump me with the task of providing all the answers when you should be addressing the very people who support UAFA alongside you (as I’m sure you have in other contexts).

And you’re wrong on income requirements (although your wording on that is contradictory and confusing): The UAFA will NOT help poorer people – the law is written very, very specifically to exclude anyone who can’t support their partners. It has onerous income requirements. Not to mention the issue of undocumented people.

As for all the other issues you point out, yes, of course they need to be taken into account. The DREAM Act, for instance is controversial for its military service component, but it may be the best shot for undocumented people brought here as children. That’s another instance of the contradictions of the movement(s). My future blog posts will be looking at all these issues separately, including the heteronormative family model. But, please,let’s not pretend that the gay community does not buy into that same model. Also, keep in mind that as a queer blog, I AM going to be looking at things from a critical queer perspective.

I think you have a lot to sort out in terms of the politics of the larger gay movement and the politics of the larger immigration rights movement. You raise some interesting points, but a single blog post is not going to address all of them and this was certainly not meant to address all of them. I’m going to go in add what Serena, Nina, and I have discussed all along – that this is the first of a multi-part series, not the be-all and end-all.

As for the heteronormativity of the gay movement being my focus – frankly, the heteronormativity of any movement is the least of my concerns; I’m more concerned with the politics of economic inequality and the oppression that arises from that, as should be evident from my writing so far. If you want to discuss heteronormativity as the biggest problem, go right ahead.

And, as you point out, the gay movement is just as (if not more) bound into the “normal” family structure. But how often does that get discussed in the gay or straight worlds? And how many people do you know who have even written critically about the UAFA? I can count 2/3 at the most, including me.

I look forward to reading your comments on future posts. I’m off to dinner with a friend, but back soon.

Rebecca,
Actually, lots of straight couples don’t *want* the option of getting married. So what about them?

As for your example of people from countries like Iran not being able to bring their partners home – please re-read my post. It’s much more difficult for Iranians and Pakistanis, for instance, to migrate even as straight, married people.

As for not wanting to read purely personal posts, yours is in fact one of the few that engages a discussion while providing personal details. So, yours is not the problem. But I stand by what I said — this is not the place to simply post a personal story and run.

As I responded elsewhere, the gay community needs to stop thinking that its issues operate in exclusion to everyone else’s. And it needs to stop appropriating other struggles without solidarity.

Thank you for bringing out a discussion that challenges the Uniting American Families Act within the matrix of human problems caused by the U.S. immigration system, which is antiquated and unjust. In fact, I see the U.S. immigration system more as an instrument for big business. Overall, it does very little for common people, and lacks compassion and justice.

You mention several times in your various posts that a lot of people in bi-national relationships will not benefit from the Uniting American Families Act – both gays and straights – because their incomes are too low, because they’re in domestic partnerships that disqualify them from receiving the immigration benefit, or for other reasons. Have I understood you correctly?

Lee addressed the income requirement (125% above the poverty level, or a financial sponsor), which is the same requirement for heterosexual sponsors of foreign partners. That seems very fair to me. Are you aware of any other financial restrictions that would limit or disqualify bi-national couples, gay or straight? I’m not aware of any myself.

So you mentioned that straight bi-national couples in domestic partnerships are disqualified from receiving the immigration benefit for the foreign partners? You said:

“And this is where IE et al’s “this is not gay marriage” logic breaks down completely. Because: heterosexuals in domestic partnerships with foreign citizens or who would like their friends, lovers etc to be able to migrate to the U.S to join them are not allowed to sponsor them. So, in effect, what UAFA supporters are saying is this: We want the same rights as *married* couples, not single and attached couples who have lovers and friends they’d like to bring over. In other words, in all this rhetoric about equality, we’re conveniently forgetting that the only heterosexuals with whom we’d like parity are… married couples, not just couples.”

I think I understand what you mean, and I’d like to discuss more than just the gay-lesbian-UAFA issue that you raised – also about other kinds of non-marriage relationships that truly devoted couples have. But first, I’d like to address your concern about heterosexual couples in domestic partnerships. You said that they are disqualified from receiving the family uniting immigration benefit. Well, they can choose to get legally married, can’t they? State and federal law would easily recognize their marriages, because they would fit the traditional look of a man married to a woman. But it is not the case for homosexual men or women. We cannot choose to marry. In most cases, such as within my own state of West Virginia, the clerk at the county court house will not even issue a marriage license to two men or women who wish to marry, because it is against state law. And even if a same-sex couple’s from a state that’s legalized same-sex marriage, their marriage will not suffice at the federal level, thanks to Bill Clinton and his support which led to the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act.

So, to reiterate: Straight Americans in domestic partnerships, if they choose to marry, can indeed sponsor their foreign partners for permanent residency as their lawful spouses, or, if they’re not yet married, they are free to sponsor their foreign fiance(e) for entrance into the United States to be legally married. In either case, they have an almost sure path to living happily as a couple in the United States. Gay and lesbian couples can do neither.

This amounts to an inexcusable and intolerable deficiency in civil rights and equal protection under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.

As for your expressed concern for couples, gay or straight, not in traditional marriage – Well, if they’re straight, they can marry and solve their immigration problem. If they’re gay or lesbian they’re up shit’s creek without a paddle.

That said, I firmly believe that no American government on any level should have a “marriage” acid test for what defines a true committed relationship. The government should guarantee full rights and benefits for all committed relationships gay and straight, between two consenting adults, and in accordance with the various human traditions, as long as they’re compatible with the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and whether they’re recognized by some religious or civil authority. That’s the point I suspect we’ll eventually reach in the United States, but until then, the gays and lesbians need some way to be guaranteed full equality under the law for their relationships, and straights theirs. Let your straight bi-national couple friends, whether they’re Christians or Witches in domestic partnerships, or whatever kind of relationship they have, legally marry for the time being, to solve their immigration problem so that they can be happy together as a family unit. And for us, the bi-national gays and lesbians, and other gays and lesbians, we need people to support a way for us to build our happy lives with the people we love. For the bi-national gays and lesbians, we need the Uniting American Families Act or the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act with federal recognition of our relationships whatever they’re called. I hope it is marriage, at least for now, until we as a nation find a better solution.

America is NOT a happy nation. We all deserve to be happy. If we could take these small, yet significant steps to build more happiness in peoples’ lives, then people like you and me Yasmin, and like Lee and her partner, will be filled with gratitude, and have more energy to work together to find answers to the bigger, more complex problems.

You know my personal thoughts on marriage. We either get rid of the institution or allow this so-called civil right for all. Granting same-sex couples the same right to be miserable should be a no-brainer and no matter how privileged or underprivileged one is, no one should have to choose between love and country.

Now CIR – This also isn’t the promised solution you and I would like it to be. Most likely, it comes with e-verify, militarizing the border, sending immigrants who have been here for less than 2 years back to their home, sending those here more than 2 years and less than 5 back to their ports of entry, and a long 10 year process which would do nothing about detention and the ever-increasing migrant military complex. I personally don’t like it anymore than I like DREAM or UAFA — all are tough pills to swallow in some way or another.

Yes, we don’t want gay politics mixed with marriage politics but if we are talking ‘family unity,’ lets include all families. It is civil discrimination when legalization takes 2 years for a heterosexual couple and 5-10 years for all ‘others.’ Maybe giving LGBT couples the same rights isn’t the way to approach the issue long-term. Ideally, marriage should not be any business of the government and hence have nothing to do with immigrating, but we aren’t there yet.

I know there are UAFA advocates who look down at the legalization of 11.8 million undocumented workers and then there are immigrants who cannot accept LGBT right to marriage. It’s highly annoying and hurtful, and I am not about to choose any sides. I’ll work for the passage of both whenever I can.

UAFA has 97 House of Rep cosponsors and 17 in the Senate. It’s going to pass sooner or later.

Listen up people and listen up good!
Let me give you a little back round on my partner and myself. We are legally married in Canada and 25 other countries. We have been in a bi-national relationship for over 8 years now. I can not, can not bring him into this country! As a tax payer, and I do believe in the bill of rights this is so unfair to all free loving people that believe in equal rights for all American citizens. For the last 8 years under the hate of the bible thumping right wing we have lost rights!
The Uniting families act would level the playing field, for all.

“I’m sympathetic to your situation, but “exile” is the wrong term. Let’s not forget that “exile” is what happens to people who are expelled for harsh political reasons and is not a term to be used loosely.”

The people that leave this country because they can’t be with there loved ones are in EXILE! I’m going to be one of them if this law isn’t passed in the next two years, that’s right I’m going to close down my business and fire 12 people because of the unfair laws of this once, once great country.

“Please remember that for every case of a binational couple kept apart, there are probably ten who are kept apart for reasons”

If the law was changed the couples in Bi-national relationship would not be kept apart.

But let me make it clear – nobody should HAVE to get married in order to gain any kinds of benefits. UAFA did not HAVE to replicate the same old ridiculous paradigms. Madison, your solution — that people should just marry for the time being ignores the fact that marriage is an oppressive institution for many, and carries real costs. This is not a business deal you make for the time being.

Prerna,

I think you’re aware that marriage is not the quick-fix solution even for many straight couples. So why pretend it is? But I’m glad you raise the complications around all the other issues.

Roy,
Enough with the drama, already. Try actually living in political exile and then come back and compare it to your situation.

And I never called “UAFA a civil rights issues, not an immigration issue” – stop lying. And if you can’t stop lying, get off this blog.

Thanks for demonstrating the protectionist and insular ideology that’s also behind UAFA. Lovely sentiment about taking care of “our” own – do you mean “Americans” or do you mean gays and lesbians? Because, of course, there are no gay and lesbian immigrants unless they’re with American citizens, right? And there are no immigrants in the gay and lesbian community, right?

I appreciate the tenor of your post. It’s a welcome relief from many of the others – so I wonder why you have no comments to make about them.

By tone, I gather you really mean my argument – and no one else has ever dared to publicly make the arguments I make, or to be critical of the idea that UAFA is a good thing. And certainly no one else has shown, as I have, that this is not even going to be a solution for every binational couple. That’s something people in favour of UAFA need to get used to.

I did not write this post to appease bi-national couples, or to win their attention. I wrote it for an audience that would be interested in at least examining the merits and demerits of a piece of legislation and to debate it in a public forum. I’ve also made it clear that I’m actually sympathetic to their situations. But I’m not here at a tea party; I’m here to discuss ideas.

I cannot disagree with you about the unfairness of being required to submit yourself to a religious tradition forced upon you by government to grant you the full equality that you’re already entitled to as a human being or American regardless of your tradition.

I used to be against marriage myself because it felt so contaminated with the energy that I associated with a very negative experience from religion. I’d much prefer an enlightened America where individuals could be free to enjoy the fruits of their own commitments to each other in their our way, all seen as valid by the civil authorities.

It’s an abandonment of our elected officials’ constitutional oath when they interfere with the immediate and swift enforcement and protection of the fundamental rights of all Citizens. No one should be forced to “marry” in order to receive the thousands of benefits that depend upon satisfying federal and state statutes that require the beneficiary to be legally married. But that’s the way it is now. Marriage is too entwined into our culture, and written into our laws and tied to so many benefits. Major jumps in social evolution are uncommon, so how can we expect Americans to accept all committed relationships between two people if they’re still stuck on marriage as the determinant? How can we expect major changes when many Americans – even educated ones – including our elected representatives, still erroneously believe that the United States was founded upon the Christian religion? Most Americans don’t even understand the nature of our Republic or know what a republic is, or the difference between a republic and a democracy. They pride themselves in being the great democracy, when the founders formed not another inferior democracy, but a superior democratic constitutional republic. Did you know that you won’t find the word democracy written in the federal constitution or any state constitution?

I understand and appreciate how you feel that the UAFA supporters is just one more group that adds more support to the undesired government imposition of the religious marriage tradition onto people who wish to move beyond that. They too desire freedom and equal protection and rights. But what shall we do? It’s unlikely that we’re going to have an orderly Zeitgeist-type of revolution any time soon. That will require a sizeable mass shift. It will happen, but we’re not there yet. So until we reach critical mass, why not band together and help each other using any strategy available to us to achieve greater equality leading to eventual full emancipation from ideological interference?

National gay organizations and enlightened religious organizations that practice the supreme law of love, should set up a way of providing the financial sponsorship for all gay and lesbian Americans in bi-national relationships who cannot meet the 125% above-the-poverty-level requirement to sponsor their foreign partners. How committed are our organizations to all peoples’ emancipation and happiness? We’ll see.

Finally, gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gender, asexual, neuter and straight (does that include everyone?) people of all traditions need to work together to solve the complex issues ahead of us, in a positive way. We’re the generation that has the task of creating a new and better, happier future for all human beings.

I have some other ideas that I’ll be writing about in the near future.

“So, go ahead and protest for Shirley Tan and others like her. But if you can’t or won’t protest on behalf of the millions of others who don’t fit the cozy and unrealistic idea of “family” as well, don’t protest at all.”

“Share and Enjoy” you say – how can I when you insult my client, and my own right to equality..

“…..and not all straight marriages are automatic routes to citizenship…..” and therefore I presume Jasmin , that you intend that to mean that lesbian and gay couples ought not have an equal opportunity to not have this route marriage…..okay maybe I am stretching what may be unintended interpretation of your statement, but as a blogger and the person who played a pivotal role in obtaining the introduction of Private Bill # 867 for Shirley Tan and her family, kindly allow me to make some corrections to the mistakes and inaccuracies in your reporting:
1. “Phillipines” is spelt ‘Philippines’;
2. “Mercado is currently a citizen, but Tan is still undocumented” –Inaccurate – Tan has always had a valid work permit;
3. Jasmin’s misrepresentation: “1995, Tan applied for asylum because, in 1979, according to her, a cousin shot her in the head and killed her mother and sister.” Shirley Tan came to the USA when the person who shot and beat her to near death and murdered her mother was released from prison due to political connections. She was not safe. We brought the case files, prison record and hospital files from Philippines to prove her story to Senator Feinstein- there is no doubt as to the validity of these facts – you may effectively delete the “according to her.”

4. You say: “ In 2002, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) served Tan with an order of deportation, but the couple claim to never have received it.” I am informing you that in April, prior to receiving the Private Bill, ICE withdrew the deportation order on the basis that Shirley had never been served with the deportation order. That is tantamount to an admission. So her status is legal and not illegal. She was then given a few weeks to voluntarily leave the USA, by May 10th; Dianne Feinstein introduced the PB on 4/22.

5. Then you say: “Today, after a flurry of press coverage, comes the news that her order of deportation has been stayed through 2010” ; There was a great deal more work than mere press coverage; this is from the horses mouth. Personally I worked non-stop for five weeks, ten hours a day exclusively and pro bono on this case. Then almost every LGBT organization with Immigration Equality concerns chipped in their talent and efforts. You have to be quite naïve to think that it was merely press and “abra cadabra shim shalabim” a private bill; pow! You say you research and speak to attorneys etc. You sure did not speak to me; nor did you speak to Shirley – nor did you speak to anyone. You read a one page article in People magazine; well at least that is all you quote.

6. Jasmin, Jasmin, Jasmin – this takes the cake. …. “upstanding suburbanites. Why, she’s even a stay-at-home soccer mom! Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality drives the nail home in a quote: “They are exactly the kind of people you want living in this country.” Right. The others can just rot in hell” Well that is an inflammatory and insulting statement – Rachel Tiven and others at IE work very hard for equality, whether you agree with the legislative format or not. There are many organizations that work for immigrant rights, it so happens that Immigration Equality, has LGBT immigration equality as their mission statement. The donors and funding for this non-profit expect their money to be used in terms of their mission statement. To think that advocating for one person or a group precludes help or concern for the others is simply a ridiculous notion and in no way helps to support your argument.

7. He rest of what you posit , staring with “This is only my first problem with UAFA – it doesn’t really change the paradigms of immigration. It fixates……” is simply a load of nonsensical hogwash and your entire posting begs the question…. EQUALITY.

8. UAFA simply provides language to correct DOMA, which akin to apartheid serves to institutionalize discrimination. Whether you agree with the legislation or not, you miss the entire point. Equality Under the law. The language of UAFA equates same-sex couples to different-sex couples and that is it. The opportunities for fraud are there whether gay or straight. Fraud comes with huge consequences and many straight people have been deported or fined as a result. To deny legitimate couples their rights simply because others break the law is a disingenuous argument and discriminatory in itself.

9. As far as CIR- Reunification of Families and the Honda initiatives, hopefully this too will include Lesbian and Gay families after all why should we be discriminated against.

10. I too am a binational couple. The consequences of my not being able to sponsor my wife resulted in me having to choose to leave my country with the love of my life (for past eight years) and our 4 year old daughter whom we had together or to stay in the US with my 11 year old child who I share custody of with an ex. What would you have done? . Had I been straight, the passage of the law you deny as relevant would have been MY BEST PATH to her immigration and keeping our family in tact. Fortunately we managed with 12 hours left to illegality, $15,000 in legal fees later, and stress beyond belief to complete our process that kept her here.

PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME or my friend Martha who is living in exile ( loveexiles.org) that you think UAFA is a bad idea. It is irresponsible, unproductive to equality as well as to the fight on behalf of all immigrants, not to mention he lack of merit both de facto and de jure in your argument.

That said I invite you and your readers to my blog (www.oblogdeoblogda.wordpress.com) Read the post on Bill #867, Shirley’s Bill and note that this gay issue provided a forum for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s first ever public mention of the PLIGHT OFF ALL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; she acknowledges in essence the support of Reunification and CIR and it was Shirley Tan and her courage that for the first time shows a marriage, if you will, between the unfairness of all Immigration Law as it pertains to gays and straights.

Because you are ‘ an immigration activist’ I encourage you to seek harmony and unity in your efforts, rather than looking for divisive means to make your point– even if you disagree with the form of legislation please do not put down the courageous fighters amongst us and please do not stand in the way of my right to equality. Melanie Nathan

Yasmin
LAW that makes a citizen choose between a loved one OR remaining in their country IS POLITICAL!!!

I’m wondering what’s making you so naive and unsympathetic to the people posting here – who’s lives would be unbelievably changed by this piece of legislation?
Karma is a funny thing – just hope you don’t fall for some nice Polish woman next week!!! and like me spend the next ten years wondering how, what, when?
Just let us get on with our lives – UEFA has been the only glimmer of hope for US citizens with foreign partners in DECADES!!! build rather than knock down and block would be my advice to you and your campaign – this is not an either OR situation.

John and Mattilda,
Thanks for your comments, and for the tenor of your posts! Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who has written, even in disagreement, in a tone that’s fitting for public discussion. Many of you who’ve disagreed have still managed to do so in a productive way, and I hope that will continue.

Madison,
With all due respect, I suggest you write your own blog and not use the comments section to do so.

Melanie,
I think it’s hilarious that you correct my spelling of Philippines, but keep referring to me as Jasmin. Multiple times.

I’m really, really glad I’ll never have to call on your services (although I’m not sure you’re her lawyer – a blogger and a person involved in introducing the bill – what does that make you, exactly?) Your inflammatory language and vituperative tone are not helping anyone, and it really doesn’t help your reputation. DOMA is akin to apartheid? I know an entire country, South Africa, that might beg to differ.

As for the facts of the case, um, if you have any issue with what I presented, go talk to the People magazine reporters. I cited the article quite emphatically. I’m not sure how to break the news to you but this is …
a BLOG! Part of the blog’s point is to use a case that’s emblematic of the issue at hand and then to discuss the issue.

It’s interesting that you criticise me for not having contacted you — after having just shown that your temperament here shows why that would never be a good idea (and you still haven’t indicated who you are, exactly, ahem) — and then you go on to happily and unethically combine my critique of UAFA with some imagined personal criticism of Shirley Tan.

My point here was to look at the representation of an “ideal/good” family and then ask us to look UAFA more closely. This was not meant to be an airing of your client’s perspectives (and again, in what capacity are you acting on her behalf, exactly?). You need to do that job, not me. And, by the way, you need to do it elsewhere, not here.

Have I already mentioned that your tone is vituperative and quite unlike what someone’s public advocate should adopt? I know dozens of lawyers, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just used. I also know a lot of advocates and publicists, and none of them would do what you just did, in the tone you just adopted. You’re just screaming at me.

Anonymous posted ” now live in the UK with my partner and she’s a born and bred US citizen who has to leave her country of origin – she is in exile – this isn’t a matter of immigration rights but civil rights for a citizen of the USA

she left her home, family, 17 year career because her country believes she shouldn’t be able to live with the partner of her choosing in her mother country”

Yasmin replied “but “exile” is the wrong term. Let’s not forget that “exile” is what happens to people who are expelled for harsh political reasons”

Respectfully, isn’t the denial of a basic civil right a harsh “political” circumstance? If not, what is it?

In order to believe that, one would have to believe that marriage is a basic civil right. And I don’t believe that it is. And in case you’re tempted to write that UAFA does not ask for marriage, please see my response above with regard to UAFA’s relationship to gay marriage.

You raise an issue to take up in a later post – which is the whole question of the sexual politics on which this legislation is based, and to what degree we can/should contest or work with that.

‘By tone, I gather you really mean my argument – and no one else has ever dared to publicly make the arguments I make, or to be critical of the idea that UAFA is a good thing. And certainly no one else has shown, as I have, that this is not even going to be a solution for every binational couple. That’s something people in favour of UAFA need to get used to.’

You won’t believe it, but people affected by the UAFA have being discussing the ‘arguments’ you are bringing up.
And they are still in favor of the UAFA.

If you want to discuss ideas, go ahead and post your realistic alternatives and solutions. Don’t deny us something without providing us an alternative.

I wonder why you are so focussed on the UAFA.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to address the issue of marriage directly to the LGBT community which is now fighting for gay marriage and all those millions of straight couples?

Again, why do you need the UAFA to make your point when we are not the ( your) problem?

It is also interesting to me that you don’t respond to Madison’s comment and his arguments when what you want is ‘discussion’. He made a couple of good points and I would like to know what you think about them. The same goes for others.

You’re missing the entire point of this blog. First of all, it’s part of a series on immigration and queers. I’m not sure how often I need to repeat that – it’s even on the top of the post.

As far as my views on marriage are concerned, google my name and you’ll see that pretty much anything I write is about marriage. I am, in fact, writing a summary post on why I’m against gay marriage, and I’ll be cross-posting it here in a fortnight or so. But, wait, Lee — what does UAFA have to do with marriage? Hmmmm… I thought your side feels that marriage doesn’t enter the picture?

Please stop trying to make this another conversation.

As for alternatives – yours is a classic liberal mode of distraction (and you, again, ignore the comment where I said that was for another post). In other words, you won’t engage with the ideas or critiques presented but fall back on the familiar tactic of “well, show me the money/proof” and that way you don’t actually have to provide any substantive arguments of your own. Again, please, enough with the distractions.

Of course I understand that UAFA supporters affected by the legislation have discussed the arguments – what part of “publicly” do you not understand? I also happen to know a number of couples who don’t care for the legislation but hope it will help them nonetheless — I know where they’re coming from, and wish the best for them.

But here’s the thing, Lee, and this is where I’m going to squarely lay it on the line for the last time:

This is not about individual cases/histories. Personalising my arguments by making it seem like I’m being personally callous about people is not going to help you make any arguments.

There are millions of people affected by immigration law, and no single legislation will help every single one of them. Lawyers, friends, and advocates will and must do what they can to help the people they work with. Activists and commentators like me have a job to do and that’s to question the status quo and the reproduction of inequality. Hence, blog post, for which see above.

Why am I so focused on the UAFA? Let’s take a deep breath and review, shall we? a)First in a series of posts on immigration and queers b)This is a blog. What part of that do you not understand?

As for Madison, I did in fact respond to his comments and, like you, he paid no heed and kept repeating the same point over and over again. And I stand by my statement: if you have a long comment that doesn’t really intersect with the issues at hand, get your own blog. Or your soapbox.

From here on, I’m going to ignore or delete repetitious comments like yours.

Oh, and Lee, please don’t try the old “And everyone else thinks like me” gang-up-on-one strategy as in, “He made a couple of good points and I would like to know what you think about them. The same goes for others.”

Again, distraction. I’ve responded to practically every single comment made here. So, the last thing you can accuse me of is a refusal to engage.

On a last note: please stop with the distractions. I practically invented every one of the strategies you just tried on me. And to all of them I say: Piffle.

Yasmin.
First of all I have to admit I didn’t read ALL responses (yours or submitted) so excuse me if repeat or am “off track”.

I think in your initial posting you don’t justify Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado’s situation.. Using words such as “for a while” (referring to their 25 years together as partners, “supposedly after meeting her female partner” (giving no credibility to why she overstayed or their love and commitment), and using the wording “finally” (when saying ICE showed up at the door) is in my opinion a poor choice (unless you really wished she had been deported years ago)

We are all subjects to the law in this country (citizen or not, documented or not), but you have to understand UAFA (faulty or not) would at least give people a chance. Without UAFA LGBT bi-national couples are left with no choice at all.

Let me ask you this: If you were arrested for a crime (which you didn’t commit), then wouldn’t you want a chance to a fair trial?? I’m sure you would say yes. Love is not a crime and yet gay and lesbian bi-national couples are not given that fair “trial”, or possibility to stay together.

You pity the “”poor” couples who possibly wouldn’t be able to financially pull through if UAFA passed and the cost of sponsoring a partner would be too great. But, with the same breath say a reform should come for the (I assume) 11 million undocumented low-wage workers.

I agree this country needs a “larger picture” immigration reform but the LGBT community cannot be excluded in this issue. Homosexuality is not a disease and love is not a crime. Many are those who think the LGBT community is looking for “special” treatment when in fact we’re looking to be afforded the same rights as everyone else.
Uniting American Families Act would grant same-sex bi-national couples ONE right (or a fair chance) to stay together regardless of their financial status.

A gross example of why equal rights issues for all needs to be addressed is Amendment #2. In Florida Amendment #2 passed, which was heavily promoted banning same-sex marriage. This led to a lot of people misunderstanding the Amendment and the fact it also took away the rights for ANY UNMARRIED COUPLE. Due to the “fear” of giving gay people their rights, a very good friend of mine got caught in its vicious web. A while back she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and got very ill. During a long struggle back to recovery she suddenly had a heart attack and died (luckily revived in the emergency room). Due to Amendment #2 her partner (a man) was blocked from any legal / health and/or financial benefits. He was completely helpless and had no rights in making any choices or financial decisions.

Though I somehow admire you or speaking out loud what you think about UAFA (as you subject yourself to a lot of angry people and nasty comments) it hurts me you take the one dream so many people have (including me) and crush it with your words. If you truly are a supporter of equal rights of any kind then embrace the glimmer of hope for us regardless if you personally think it will pass or not.

When Rosa Park once refused to give up her seat in the bus which she felt she had the right to use I don’t think her biggest concern (or the African-American’s) was whether she would come out bruised and battered. She just did something which was a basic human right and it sparked a move which pushed rights forward.
Regardless if we (the gay community) come out bruised and battered it is the action that counts. UAFA is our Rosa Park and yes Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado might be our poster child. But if were not determined push things forward we will never go anywhere.

I will end this reply by saying (and once again I didn’t read all replies) I didn’t see any suggestion from you to a solution. Saying “At the very least, the law needs to change so that it’s more flexible” does not really suggest any valid argument. I wish you would turn all the negativity you feel against UAFA to something positive because right it is all we have and you’re not helping anyone as an immigration activist. Also, you should have kept UAFA and CIR separated (two posts) as they even though touch immigration are too far apart from each other.

Yes, you are off track. And the bit about the solution has been addressed in previous comments. Please read them.

As for the outrageous claim that UAFA is your Rosa Parks: Come on people, could we could stop appropriating EVERY major struggle? First, someone suggests that UAFA is like apartheid, and now this? Sit down and think – perspective, perspective, perspective.

My use of particular words in describing Tan and Mercado’s reflects the fact that I’m not speaking after having seen their files, or with intimate knowledge of their situation. And of being aware of how avenues like People magazine leave out critical details.

Love is not the issue here. Immigration reform is.

Since you’re new to this conversation, I’ll just leave you with this: stop personalising this and acting like it’s just about personal stories. For more on that, please see last comment to Lee. Read all my comments, and then come back if you have something that hasn’t already been addressed.